ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00060036

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  31/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

1.          Procedure:

• 1.1 In accordance with section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on Tuesday, March 31st 2026, at which I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.  The complainant, Mr Gordan Pavlica, attended the hearing alone and represented himself.  Mr Pavlica’s former employer, Burke Joinery Limited, was represented by Ms Christina O’Byrne BL, instructed by Mr Paddy Cowhey of Denis McSweeney Solicitors.  Witnesses for the employer were the managing director, Mr John Burke and the production director, Mr David Burke.
• 1.2 While the parties are named in this Decision, from here on, I will refer to Mr Pavlica as “the complainant and to Burke Joinery Limited as “the respondent.”

2.            Background:

• 2.1 Established in 1986, the respondent designs and manufactures doors and bespoke joinery. The have around 30 employees.  The complainant is a wood machinist and he started in the company in October 2015.  He earned around €820 per week, inclusive of some overtime.
• 2.2 In 2025, the respondent won a prestigious contract to supply and fit entrance door sets in an apartment development being constructed by John Sisk & Son Limited at the Glass Bottle site in Dublin 4. The complainant was assigned to the task of machining the lock sections of the doors.  In layman’s terms, this means that he used a computer-programmed machine to cut out the wood so that the door locks could be fitted.  On May 26th 2025, he made a mistake when he machined 15 doors with the lock sections on the wrong side.  He was dismissed on May 30th.  A letter confirming his dismissal states that he was dismissed for “serious performance issues, repeated operational errors and breaches of company standards, despite being given multiple warnings and opportunity for improvement.”
• 2.3 It is the complainant’s case that his dismissal was unfair. He accepts that he made a mistake, but he claims that he was under pressure, that the instructions he received were unclear and that the machinery was faulty. 

3.            Summary of Respondent’s Case:

• 3.1 In her submission on behalf of the respondent, Ms O’Byrne included a timeline of the events that led to the complainant’s dismissal. She listed a range of incidents where the complainant made mistakes by machining doors incorrectly with the result that they had to be remade or re-worked.  Mistakes included problems with vision panels, the positioning of drop seals, machining the wrong face of doors, programming locks incorrectly, hinging doors incorrectly and other errors.  Ms O’Byrne said that the complainant’s poor workmanship caused the company losses of thousands of euros. 
• 3.2 Ms O’Byrne presented a copy of a page from the respondent’s accident report book showing five entries between February 2022 and February 2025 involving the complainant. She said that the accidents were caused by the complainant’s negligence, poor workmanship and reckless disregard for health and safety.  On February 10th 2023, he damaged his hand on a joinery moulder, requiring a hospital visit, after which he was absent for four weeks.  The respondent paid the complainant his wages while he was absent.  On March 7th 2024, he cut his hand when he was working on a “Stemas acoustic machine.”  Six weeks later, on April 24th 2024, he cut his leg using a lifting device.  On February 10th 2025, he cut his arm when he was using a CNC cutting machine.
• 3.3 On January 12th 2024, at a meeting with the directors, the complainant was informed that his absences, lates and poor quality workmanship wouldn’t be tolerated. At the same meeting, the directors agreed to increase the complainant’s wages by 17% in anticipation that his attendance, time-keeping and performance would improve.
• 3.4 Ms O’Byrne said that, in the 12 months before he was dismissed, the complainant was issued with multiple verbal warnings. In the respondent’s papers for the hearing, she included a schedule of 10 incidents between May 2024 and May 23rd 2025, that resulted in the complainant being warned verbally that his workmanship was poor and was costing the business money. 
• 3.5 Ms O’Byrne explained that, because the construction business is thriving and it is extremely difficult to hire experienced wood machinists, the directors adopted a benign approach to the complainant’s performance deficits. She said that, although he was dismissed at the end of May 2025, it was only possible to find someone to replace him 10 months later, in March 2026. 
• 3.6 The respondent won a project to supply door sets at the Glass Bottle apartment development. The entrance doors to the apartment blocks were being fitted with what is referred to as a “Salto” lock.  The doors had to be prepared for the lock fixtures before they were delivered to the site.  The complainant was assigned to do the cutting out of the lock sections by machine.  The machine has a computer-driven programme that enables complex wood cutting.  The objective was to have the machining done in the factory, so that the third-party installation team could fit the locks after the doors were installed.
• 3.7 The directors arranged for a specialist from the lock manufacturers, Salto Systems, to show the complainant how to prepare the doors. The respondent’s submission includes an email from the specialist to Mr John Burke and others dated Friday, May 23rd 2025, in which he referred to “the final revision block that was prepared today and successfully tested with the Salto hardware.”  He went on, “This is the template to which Burke Joinery will prepare the apartment doors.”  Attached to the email are six photographs of mocked-up door sections or blocks, showing the sections of the doors corresponding to the parts of the locks. 
• 3.8 On Monday, May 26th, the complainant programmed and machined 15 doors for the first floor of the development. The following day, the foreman told the production director, Mr David Burke, that they had been machined with the lock sections on the wrong side.  Mr Burke sent the complainant home and told him to come in the next day for a meeting.  The doors had to be replaced, the delivery to the Glass Bottle site was delayed and the Salto lock installation team had to push out their arrival on the site.  Ms O’Byrne said that the cost to the respondent was significant, financially and reputationally. 
• 3.9 At a meeting on Wednesday, May 28th, the managing director, Mr John Burke told the complainant that his errors had had a significant impact on their business. The complainant had training and guidance from the Salto lock specialist, mock-ups had been developed and the technical information to produce the doors to the required specification was available to him.  Mr Burke explained this to the complainant and told him that his record of mistakes, safety breaches and lates and absences had a massive impact on the business and could no longer be tolerated.  He told the complainant that his employment was terminated and that he would be paid in lieu of notice and for any outstanding holiday entitlements.
• 3.10 Ms O’Byrne said that, based on his service of almost 10 years, the complainant was entitled to four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and the directors made an error by paying him two weeks’ wages. Ms O’Byrne said that two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice remains due.

Evidence of the Managing Director, Mr John Burke

• 3.11 Mr Burke said that the company was set up by their father, John Burke Senior, who had been apprenticed as a carpenter with John Sisk & Son, with whom the respondent had a positive relationship over 40 years. When Mr Burke Senior established his company in 1986, Sisks supported him and awarded him joinery contracts.  Mr Burke said that the complainant’s mistakes had a very damaging effect on their reputation with Sisks. 
• 3.12 Mr Burke said that their company is now a multi-million-euro business backed by Enterprise Ireland. He said that, to suggest, as the complainant did, that they have no systems, is nonsense.  Projects must be delivered on time and, to do this, work must be planned and there must be systems in place to get each component of the work done.
• 3.13 Referring to the project at the Glass Bottle site, Mr Burke said that, when they get a contract like this, “you have to wrap them in cotton wool.” Mr Burke said that he talks to everyone in his company involved in such projects.  The CNC machine is a computerised cutting machine.  Mr Burke said that he insisted that the Salto locks were installed in the doors on the Glass Bottle site, which meant that the work assigned to the complainant on the machine was not the final aspect of the job.
• 3.14 Mr Burke said that the complainant’s name “came up more than others” regarding problems and mistakes and that he was associated with cost overruns of €12,000 in the six months up to May 2025. Mr Burke referred to one occasion when the complainant hurt his hand.  He said that, when he looked at the CCTV, he observed the complainant putting his hand into a live cutter. 
• 3.15 Mr Burke said that he has a meeting every Friday with his brother, David, the production director. He said that the complainant’s name came up too often at these meetings.  The complainant was issued with 10 verbal warnings in the 12 months before he was dismissed.  Mr Burke said, “we were being too good to Gordan,” and that they persevered, trying to get the work done.  When he was absent, they paid the complainant’s wages.  He said that the complainant should have done things better, because he is experienced, but, Mr Burke said, he never challenged him.
• 3.16 Mr Burke addressed the complainant’s contention that their machines are faulty. He said that the machines installed in their facility cost multiples of millions of euros and they have the most sophisticated extraction systems.  He asked, “How can you turn over €4.5m a year and not have proper systems and machinery?”
• 3.17 Returning to the problems with the doors for the Glass Bottle apartment development, Mr Burke said that his brother, David, was on the production floor. He said that he was in a state of shock when he reported to him what had happened with the 15 doors.  He said that he met the complainant the following day in the board room and he put it to him directly that his performance was a serious issue for the company.
• 3.18 After the complainant was dismissed, Mr Burke said that it was difficult to find a replacement. He said that the complainant shouldn’t have had a problem finding work and that no one has contacted them for a reference.  Mr Burke concluded that, despite his nine years of service, the standard of the complainant’s work was getting worse and his persistent errors made no logical sense.

Evidence of the Production Director, Mr David Burke

• 3.19 Mr David Burke said that, out of 10 hours a day in the factory, he spends eight hours on the factory floor. He spends two hours in the office organising jobs.  He said that the complainant and six or seven others, including two general operators were dedicated to the machines.
• 3.20 Mr Burke said that he engaged with the complainant and the other machine operators every day, checking technical issues and drawings and making sure that everyone had the information they needed to get the work done. Mr Burke said that he disagrees with the complainant’s assertion that he didn’t have enough information to do his job.  He said, “I spent the guts of an hour every day going through schedules, handwritten notes and sketches with him.”  Asked by Ms O’Byrne why they didn’t address the problem of the complainant’s poor workmanship sooner, Mr Burke said that the complainant was adaptable; if they didn’t have a flow of doors coming in, he could be placed in another zone.  Mr Burke said that his job was to make sure that the complainant had the correct information.
• 3.21 On May 26th 2025, Mr Burke said that he felt good because the complainant had been guided by the expert from Salto. He said that this person spent four hours with the complainant and made mock-ups of how the work was too be done.  Mr Burke said that it felt good that the job had started.  On the 27th, when the foreman told him that the doors were machined the wrong way around, he said he felt sick.  He said that he told the complainant to go home.  When he spoke to his brother John, the managing director, John said that he would speak to the complainant the next day.
• 3.22 Considering all the verbal warnings that were issued to the complainant between 2024 and 2025, Ms O’Byrne asked Mr Burke why he wasn’t ever issued with a final written warning. Mr Burke replied that the job was very busy and he wanted him there.  He said that he respected the complainant and that he was looking after him.

4.            Summary of Complainant’s Case:

• 4.1 The complainant provided a written submission in advance of the hearing. He said that, during the nine years that the was employed by the respondent, he regularly worked overtime, and that he probably has the record for working the most hours.  He said that he never received any verbal or written warnings and he was never put on a performance improvement plan.  The only warning he ever received was on July 15th 2022 when he missed a day at work because of his father’s death.  He said that he didn’t return to Croatia after his father died and he missed the funeral because he was committed to his job.  He was never invited to a formal meeting to discuss his performance. 
• 4.2 Following his dismissal, the complainant submitted a data subject access request (DSAR) to his employer. He denies that he attended any of the meetings referred to in the documents he received as part of the DSAR.  He said that he wasn’t present at any meetings regarding health and safety concerns or any meetings about his performance.  He is concerned that some of the documents may have been created after he was dismissed.
• 4.3 The complainant said that he strongly disputes the accuracy of the records that purport to show that he was late, left early and was absent on multiple occasions. He said that, while he might have missed an hour or two due to personal matters, he always agreed this with management, usually by phone.  When he was absent, he always discussed his need for time off in advance and got agreement.  He was willing to make up the lost time, and he claims that he worked significantly more than the hours stipulated in his contract, including substantial overtime throughout the year.
• 4.4 It is the complainant’s case that the injuries he sustained in the workplace occurred because of poor maintenance and inadequate machinery.
• 4.5 The complainant said that he accepts that he made a mistake with the doors for the Glass Bottle site; the machining for the handles was reversed. He said that he takes responsibility for his part in this.  He asked me to consider the context in which he worked; he said that he was the last person on the production line and he was under constant pressure “to make sure everything was correct before pressing the button.”  He claims that he was “working with unclear information, disorganisation and faulty machinery.”  Because of this, he said that he would double-check everything, he would walk the floor to speak with colleagues and, in the specific case that resulted in his dismissal, he spoke with the production director, Mr Burke, to confirm the details before he started.  He said that Mr Burke didn’t respond.  He said that, despite the problems, he was “regularly praised for spotting errors and for saving the company money.”  While he made a mistake, this occurred in an environment where mistakes were likely.  He said that he doesn’t believe that his dismissal was justified.

Evidence of the Complainant

• 4.6 Opening his evidence, the complainant read through his written statement which I have summarised above. He repeated that he accepts that he made a mistake.  He said however, that his dismissal is unfair because, over the years, he saved the company money and he was praised for this.  He saved money by going back to the project managers and checking instructions.  He said that, on one occasion, Mr David Burke referred to him as “the man of the year.”
• 4.7 The complainant said that Mr Burke knows what happens on the factory floor. He said that he was multi-tasking every day.  He said that his mistake should be considered in the broader context.  He said that he is not sure why he was dismissed, there were no meetings and the procedure was unfair.  He said that he was confused with the information he had for the job and he didn’t get an opportunity to tell his side of the story. 

5.            Findings and Conclusions:

The Legal Framework

5.1 We know from s.6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, that “the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed … to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.” The effect of this is to place the onus of proving that a dismissal is not unfair on the employer.  Further on, at s.6(4), the Act provides that a dismissal is not unfair if it results,

wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b) the conduct of the employee[.]

Subsections (c) and (d) of s.6(4) are not relevant to the case under consideration here.  It is apparent from subsections (a) and (b) that the dismissal of an employee for reasons related to conduct or performance may not be unfair.  To determine if a dismissal is unfair, s.6(7) requires me, as the adjudication officer in this case, to have regard “to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the employer in relation to the dismissal” and the extent to which the employer followed their own dismissal procedure or any statutory Code of Practice related to dismissal procedures.

5.2      In the almost 50 years of case law that has developed since the enactment of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, we have learned that a “not unfair” dismissal is one where another reasonable employer in similar circumstances would have made the same decision and dismissed the employee.  The reasonableness or otherwise of an employer’s decision to dismiss an employee was considered in 2012 in the Circuit Court appeal of the determination of the former Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in Allied Irish Bank plc v Purcell[1].  Mr Purcell was dismissed when it was found that he looked at the bank accounts of his colleagues and another person who was not a bank employee.  Setting out the approach of the Court to the process of reaching a decision on the issue, Ms Justice Linnane referred to what is conventionally known as “the British Leyland test[2],” which requires the decision-maker to ask if it was reasonably open to the employer to make the decision it made.  Regarding how the test should be framed, Judge Linnane stated:

“It is clear that it is not for the EAT or this court to ask whether it would dismiss in the circumstances or substitute its view for the employer’s view but to ask was it reasonably open to the respondent to make the decision it made rather than necessarily the one the EAT or the court would have taken.”

5.3 It is not for me therefore, as the adjudicator in this matter, to consider if the complainant should have been dismissed, but to ask if it was reasonably open to his employer to make the decision it made, or if could they have made a different decision and applied a lesser sanction. Based on the evidence presented to me, I must consider if the decision of the respondent was that of “a reasonable employer in those circumstances in that line of business.”[3]

The Reasonableness or Otherwise of the Employer’s Decision

5.4      On May 26th 2025, the complainant machined 15 very expensive doors with the lock sections on the wrong side.  The doors had to be scrapped and their installation on a very prestigious project was delayed.  The question for me is, what would any reasonable person running a joinery business do in those circumstances?

5.5      The complainant was with the company for 10 years and was an experienced machinist.  He said that he made a mistake; he claimed that his instructions were unclear and the machinery was faulty.  However, specifically for this set of doors, he was tutored by the lock manufacturer on how to prepare the doors for the locks.  A sample block of a door was prepared by the tutor, who left instructions and photographs with the complainant.  Also, it is apparent that the machine worked, because the doors were machined for the locks, but on the wrong side.  The complainant had to place the doors on the machine with the correct side up, and, in this regard, he had just two options.  Regrettably, he selected the wrong one.  Rather than attribute the cause of the mistake to the lack of instructions or faulty machinery, it seems to me that it was caused by the complainant’s failure to pay proper attention to the job in hand.

5.6      I heard the evidence of the directors concerning previous errors the complainant made that resulted in re-makes and re-work of jobs.  The witnesses also gave evidence about three occasions when he caused injuries to himself that resulted in him being absent from work.  It was apparent to me that, despite these problems, the directors liked the complainant.  People with his skills are difficult to find, and there may have been a certain tolerance of his occasional poor workmanship and his lates and absences.  It is my view that, while the complainant may have been spoken to on several occasions about the need to address the poor standard of his work, the evidence that he was issued with verbal warnings carries no weight.   

5.7      In a business employing just 30 people, it would be unusual to employ a dedicated human resources person, and, as a family business with mostly long-serving employees, formal disciplinary investigations and dismissals are not day to day events.  The two directors must know all their employees personally, and, in such circumstances, the normal approach to performance or conduct issues is to encourage or plead with a recalcitrant employee to try to not repeat mistakes.  When this approach fails, a “last straw” event inevitably occurs and the outcome is dismissal.  The incident of May 26th 2025, when the complainant machined 15 doors on the wrong side, was just such a last straw.  It is my view that, most employers in the same circumstances would have dismissed the complainant, and I am satisfied therefore, that the directors’ decision to dismiss him was not unreasonable.        

Procedural Failings

5.8 Having reached this conclusion, it is my view that, while it was not unreasonable to dismiss the complainant, it was unfair to do so without carrying out an investigation and giving him an opportunity to be represented and to respond to the case against him. It is my view also that a more robust approach to managing the complainant’s previous conduct may have had the effect of making him more careful at his work.  A written admonishment and a warning that he would be dismissed if he continued to make mistakes, may have had the effect of improving his performance.  Even a small business can find HR support these days and, as the directors had a positive regard for the complainant and valued his skills, it was incumbent on them to formally address his performance failings so that his dismissal could be averted.

5.9 The balance between the reasonableness of the decision to dismiss an employee and the reasonableness of the procedure is not an even one. In the case under consideration, there was a failure to follow any semblance of a procedure.  That said, if the directors had meticulously followed a disciplinary procedure, that complainant may still have been dismissed.  In my task to decide on this matter, I must take account of all the circumstances, including the seriousness of the incident on May 26th 2025, the effect of that incident on the respondent, and the effect on the complainant of his dismissal.  I note that, despite his sought-after skills, 10 months after he was dismissed, on the date of this hearing, the complainant hadn’t taken up another job.  The respondent’s evidence is that no employer has contacted them for a reference, and I must conclude therefore, that the complainant’s efforts to find a new job lacked enthusiasm.

Conclusion

5.10 I have carefully considered the evidence of the respondent’s directors and I have listened to the complainant’s argument concerning his case that his dismissal was unfair. I am satisfied that the respondent had reasonable cause to dismiss the complainant.  In accordance with s.6(7) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, I am required also to consider the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the employer.  Considering the failure of the respondent to invoke any procedure to determine if the complainant should be dismissed, I must conclude that his dismissal was unfair.

6.            Decision:

• 6.1 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act. I have concluded that the dismissal of the complainant was procedurally unfair, and I decide therefore that his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 is well founded. 
• 6.2 Considering the amount to be awarded in redress, I have taken account of the complainant’s contribution to his dismissal and the financial and reputational impact of his conduct on the respondent. I note also that the respondent paid the complainant two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice of his dismissal, when he was legally entitled to four weeks’ notice.  I am also mindful of the fact that the complainant presented no evidence of his attempts to seek employment after his dismissal.  Taking account of all these circumstances, I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €5,000, equivalent to just over six weeks’ pay.  This award is in the form of loss of earnings and is subject to the normal deductions of tax, PRSI and USC.

Dated:   9th July 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Catherine Byrne

Key Words:

[1] Allied Irish Bank plc v Purcell, [2021] 23 ELR 189

[2] British Leyland UK v Swift, [1981] IRLR 91

[3] Bunyan v United Dominions Trust (Ireland) Limited, [1982] IRLM 404